Talk:Overpopulation

Quotes from rightwing neocon Cato Institute staff Julian Simon attacking Overpopulation as "Myth" are erroneously absurd and inappropriate to lead article. Paul Ehrlich destroyed Simon's "Humans are the Ultimate Resource" theory in David Suzuki's PBS video, PAUL EHRLICH AND THE POPULATION BOMB. Simon claimed the planet can never have too many humans. In overpopulated decades ahead, Paul Ehrlich will be remembered as a heroic visionary, while those claiming Overpopulation is a "myth" will be condemned for destroying the planet and our quality of life. 128.95.243.226 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is now properly worded and should not be deleted. It was acerbic and derogatory, but now is edited and relevant. It is critical of Julian Simon and his neocon movement's absurd statement that "Overpopulation is a Myth." Overpopulation is certainly not a myth. Yet if you Google "overpopulation," the top results are these nonsense websites claiming "overpopulation is a myth."

We must restore SCIENCE and REASON. This debate is similar to the DARWINIAN EVOLUTION debate: In both cases, there is no debate among the scientific community, rather, a few rightwing religious cultists don't want to tolerate Darwinian Evolution or Birth Control, so they constantly attack Wikipedia and other sites to promote their own anti-Evolution, anti-Birth Control agenda.

If I despise Catholics, should I be allowed to vandalize the biography of the Pope? No. So we should not allow anti-birth control cultists to vandalize the Overpopulation Wiki with the absurd claim that "Overpopulation is a myth." This is why my University forbids Wikipedia and Wikiquote as footnote references on our academic papers: We cannot trust content often vandalized by cultists with an agenda. User:66.212.79.17|66.212.79.17]] 02:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to find some quotes regarding our earth not being overpopulated when I searched the word overpopulated.

Um, Simon won the bet. So, the above rant is a bit like saying the Colts beat Namath's Jets.

The Cato Institute is "rightwing" and "neocon"? Are these people serious? The latest statistics I have seen ate that since 1960 food production has increased by 25% but population has douvled. And in Africa food production has decreased by 10% while the population increased by 40%

I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.

In the last 200 years the population of our planet has grown exponentially, at a rate of 1.9% per year. If it continued at this rate, with the population doubling every 40 years, by 2600 we would all be standing literally shoulder to shoulder.

English Wikipedia has separate titles for "overpopulation" as a general topic covering all species and "human overpopulation" to specifically disuss issues of our species. At the moment I have created a wikiquote article on "Human overpopulation" as a redirect here - but, for consistency, I think it might be better to move some content from "overpopulation" to "Human overpopulation. Gregkaye (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC) best @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gregkaye

“In the section NPOV above the issue of reply to stances taken regarding overpopulation was raised. On the point of debate I have now got to thinking that wikiquotes might be a good forum for the presentation of arguments. I have only just found the content that relates to Human overpopulation which is currently at: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Overpopulation . I had proposed on the talk page there to move content to "Human overpopulation" so as to make a parallel this article. Now with debate in mind I'm wondering if there could be two pages. Here are two sets of suggestions - we could either use titles: "Present and/or future population levels as being a problem" and "Present and/or future population levels as not being a problem" or we could use titles "Concern regarding present and/or future levels of human population" and "Present and/or future levels of human population as not being a concern". I prefer the second option as it widens inclusion and maybe there are other title suggestions. whichever titles are used there would then be places where views could be gathered from either side of the argument and then compared.Gregkaye (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)” — {{{2}}}